And the cream will rise to the top I'm sure you'll proclaim Parky. But with the pathway now narrowed, are we accepting that we can afford to miss the late developers such as Peacock and the ones missed by SL clubs such as Hardacre?

I read with interest the details of the 'partnership' between Batley And Huddersfield in the LE yesterday and the great benefits which the Bulldogs will enjoy such as private medical insurance paid for by the Giants which is great news for the part time players. Strangely, the article doesn't mention what's in it for Huddersfield. John Kear states that he already has a squad of 25 Batley players and that he has complete control over team selection and doesn't have to use Giants players unless he feels the need.

I got the impression that the arrangement is loaded heavily in favour of Batley which seems hard to believe. So if all that John Kear says is true, what's in it for Huudersfield? How are they going to justify employing an extra member of staff to their medical team in addition to the considerable additional cost of providing private medical cover for 25 Batley players if there's no obligation on John Kear to give the Giants players game time each week?

Such benevolence from SL towards the Championship isn't exactly what we're accustomed to.

Wedding Films For The Discerning by Picture HouseFree Showreel DVD On Request

That's what I kept thinking as I read that piece, Terry? What is the point of the link up from the Giants viewpoint if none of their fringe players are getting picked to play for Batley? Methinks, Mr Kear is desperately trying to keep several plates spinning with that one!!!!

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.

That's what I kept thinking as I read that piece, Terry? What is the point of the link up from the Giants viewpoint if none of their fringe players are getting picked to play for Batley? Methinks, Mr Kear is desperately trying to keep several plates spinning with that one!!!!

At the top pro level. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you reduce the number of teams the SL sides run that'a 17 to 20 players less per team in the SL system. You might farm out 4 or 5 to a feeder team but you will still have a net reduction in the number of top level players.

Find me a young English centre prospect that could get five starts in the NRL.

Fact is the NRL have far far more kids taking up the game and they develop far more stars and some of the players who are only fringe in the NRL where's there's so much more competition are of course better than what we have.

You seem to want to ingore the point that Australia/antipodes is blesssed with far far more players than England.

You find me an Australian club who will go to the expense of paying for a young English player to move to Australia on the chance that they might make it in the NRL when they have a raft of prospects at their back door. That's what the English teams are doing. It's a very expensive gamble whereas a locally produced player in either country will come a lot cheaper.

You find the club and then I will check out the players who might qualify.

At the top pro level. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. If you reduce the number of teams the SL sides run that'a 17 to 20 players less per team in the SL system. You might farm out 4 or 5 to a feeder team but you will still have a net reduction in the number of top level players.

They aren't top level players though. They are players at a top level club.

All the truly top level players will be retained.

The theory of losing all the top level players due to these academy changes is an absolute myth.

Explain to me how 'feeder clubs' reduces the number of quality players.

Well, unless I have misunderstood the process, the SL teams have been running several teams below the SL level to develop British talent. The proposal is to reduce the number of these teams so you will lose 17 to 20 players per team depending on how many teams you eliminate, it could be more.

Any surplus players left over after they eliminate their development teams, whom they want to retain, they are farming out to the feeder clubs, a maximum of 4 or 5. Does this not, by simple mathematics reduce the number of spaces available for the development of British talent?

The decision could eventually reduce the number of kids playing the game. In the past, they have seen a pathway which sees many junior players being picked up for a Scholarship. With no under 20's that will drastically reduce the number of kids recruited. Without this carrot in front of them, some may lose interest.

They aren't top level players though. They are players at a top level club.

All the truly top level players will be retained.

The theory of losing all the top level players due to these academy changes is an absolute myth.

You mean SL teams sign inferior players out of some sense of altruism. I think they sign players because they are top class prospects. I think this is an expensive operation and they are looking to cut costs because they can't manage their money.

They have compromised by keeping the very best of their recruits by farming them out to feeder clubs, whilst jettisoning the rest to save money. They will miss some top players I think. See all the posts re Australia and the numbers game. We are reducing our numbers at the top level of development and we will reduce the number of top players we produce as a result.

You mean SL teams sign inferior players out of some sense of altruism. I think they sign players because they are top class prospects. I think this is an expensive operation and they are looking to cut costs because they can't manage their money.

They have compromised by keeping the very best of their recruits by farming them out to feeder clubs, whilst jettisoning the rest to save money. They will miss some top players I think. See all the posts re Australia and the numbers game. We are reducing our numbers at the top level of development and we will reduce the number of top players we produce as a result.

Leeds Rhinos certainly haven't. Out of all the academy players they have released early only Peter Fox has gone on to play for England.

There will be no effect whatsoever to the number of truly top level players England produces due to these changes.

I think the proposal is for SL clubs to run Under 19 teams and do away with their Under 18 and Under 20 teams. If that is correct then obviously reducing two teams in to one means that some young players are surplus to requirements and will be shipped out. SL clubs will still run their scholarships for Under 15's and be able to cherry pick good youngsters of that age from areas like west Cumbria, for instance. At 16 the same youngster will have to play in the Under 19's or go back to his roots. It is the players over 19 that can't get games and senior players returning from injury who the SL clubs will be wanting to get game time for and if every club took the stance that Mr Kear is suggesting then that surely defeats the object of the SL clubs proposals. Then to give those players game time the local lads get left out and you begin to get an unsettled Championship team.

Edited by Keith T, 13 November 2012 - 02:53 PM.

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.

That's as of now. When the feeder system takes hold they will release a lot more and they may miss a potential England player.

Leeds also released Morrell and he has has a very good career with HKR>

Yep, because they had Sinfield (who has since won 6 titles). You can't keep them all.

When the partnership system (not feeder system) takes hold they will still keep the same players they were going to keep anyway. By the time a player reaches the cut-off age he will have been in the system for 4 years. The club will know if they have what it takes by then.

Yes one or two will slip through the net, but they will have an opportunity to show what they are made of at another club, just like Peter Fox did at York. Just like Danny Brough did at Dewsbury and York.

Yep, because they had Sinfield (who has since won 6 titles). You can't keep them all.

When the partnership system (not feeder system) takes hold they will still keep the same players they were going to keep anyway. By the time a player reaches the cut-off age he will have been in the system for 4 years. The club will know if they have what it takes by then.

Yes one or two will slip through the net, but they will have an opportunity to show what they are made of at another club, just like Peter Fox did at York. Just like Danny Brough did at Dewsbury and York.

The cream will always rise to the top eventually.

If it is not lost to the game completely by disilllusionment or going to RU. Do we have so much talent that we can afford to gamble like this.

Yes one or two will slip through the net, but they will have an opportunity to show what they are made of at another club, just like Peter Fox did at York. Just like Danny Brough did at Dewsbury and York. The cream will always rise to the top eventually......If they get disillusioned so easily then they never will be a truly top level player in any case.

Seriously you are so clueless and have NO idea! I know a number of lads who were academy players or atleast on the books of a pro club who have walked away from the game. One of them was Gareth Widdop! But of course he will never make it at the top level will he . He was was fed up and disillussioned with things. He was at England camps the lot but gave it all up to play Union with his friends at Old Brods. Its only when his family emigerated to Australia did he start playing again. You think he is the only one who gave it up and would never have made it?

Is there really much difference to a club releasing a 20 year old rather than a 23 year old? Thats the only difference under these rules.

There is actually especially forwards who mature often later in their career. Jamie Peacock was an average player who didnt really start shining until well after being 20 years old. Karl Harrison a former England prop mentioned this and he reckoned he would not have been kept on and likely would have drifted out the game. And what about the late comers that come in and need time to show what they can do. Jimmy Keinhorst is a prime example. Was never in an academy up until last year. He did have trials at Halifax, which I organized, but Halifax got rid of their academy and its only Paul Fletcher at Leeds Met that insisted Leeds look at him that he went to the Rhinos on trial. But with the change in system its unlikely Jimmy or others that have come in late in to the pro game can show what they can do.